Relevant Today Just As It Was Then

Profiling isn't Racist By Mike Rosen 06/17/2010 With all the contrived outrage from foaming-at- the-mouth activists, the perfectly rational and justifiable practice of "profiling" is getting an undeserved bad name. This is partially explained by a fundamental misunderstanding of the term. Profiling is a method of identifying a set of characteristics that belong to persons who engage in a certain type of behavior. FBI profiling applies the science of forensic psychology to analyze crime cases for clues that lead to the identity of perpetrators. In the 1991 movie "The Silence of the Lambs," Hannibal Lecter — an imprisoned psychologist and cannibalistic serial killer — bargains for special treatment in exchange for assisting FBI agent Clarice Starling in profiling another serial killer on the loose. The term is also imprecisely used as a substitute for little more than a "description." If you've been given the description of a lost Great Dane, you won't mistake it for a toy poodle. If eyewitnesses to a murder describe the killer as a 6-foot-8, 300-pound white male, the police will broadcast that description to aid in his arrest. If that fits you, you might be stopped by a cop, while a 5-foot-1, 100-pound Asian woman won't be bothered. Race is merely one of many relevant characteristics included for purposes of identification. It's not "racist" to do so. There were distinctive physical and behavioral characteristics common to the 9/11 terrorists who hijacked airplanes, murdered 3,000 innocent people and destroyed the World Trade Center in New York. They were young, Arab, Muslim males. They and others who have attempted similar attacks have purchased one-way tickets and paid with cash. This is all part of the suicide-bomber profile, and it's why 80-year-old grandmothers are subject to less scrutiny at airports. Which brings us to the overwrought furor over "racial profiling" in Arizona under the state's new law to stem the tide of illegal immigration. As a border state, Arizona is a gateway and collection point. Lax and ineffective policies by the federal government have done little to solve the problem. The indisputable fact is that the vast majority of illegal aliens who cross our southern border from Mexico are Latino. Very few are Scandinavian or Asian. If the enforcement of Arizona's new law is successful or if the federal government ever gets serious about enforcing its own immigration laws, the vast majority of illegal aliens who will be repelled or evicted will be Latino. But their race is only incidental. It's their illegal behavior, not racism that motivates and justifies their exclusion. Major League Baseball is replete with Latino ballplayers who are in the country legally and cheered on by Anglo fans indifferent to their race. It's preposterous to claim that Arizona cops will be stopping and harassing everyone who simply looks Latino. There aren't nearly enough of them — cops, that is. Race — or raza, in Spanish — is only one element of the typical profile of an illegal alien. After a legal stop for some specific act, the police will be looking for a pattern of behavior. It might include the failure to produce a legal ID, driver's license or immigration documents (or carrying forged ones); use of a fraudulent Social Security number; an inability to speak English; and the presence of a dozen such people in the back of a van. In the event that Latinos legally in Arizona, including U.S. citizens, may be asked to identify themselves, the worst they'll suffer is a minor inconvenience. If they appreciate the magnitude of the illegal immigration problem, they'll understand. For radical Latino groups like La Raza, cries of racial profiling are a pretense. Their first loyalty is to their "race," not the U.S. Their goal is open borders for their countrymen. What they really oppose is the enforcement of our immigration laws.